Senator Grassley Was Wrong About Chief Justice Roberts
Pages
▼
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Friday, November 23, 2018
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
On Conspiracy Theories and Faulty Conspiracy Apologetical Methodology:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I originally intended to write an article on this subject saving various snippets from contributions I made to various Wikipedia articles on this subject. However, this website was suspended before I could tend to that matter. In going back to peruse the live links themselves, apparently Wikipedia at some point blocked me from contributing there until sometime in 2020. I suspect it was because of the blurbs below which were hardly helpful to propagating the conspiracy weltanschauung that was being perpetrated on the pertinent discussion threads at the time. So though some context will be lacking, I will post the blurbs here since I abhor censorship and to put out there what apparently Wikipedia conspiracy advocates who moderated such threads were too scared to let remain on said threads. So below in fire coloured font is the material published as it was originally written including any spelling or grammatical errors I made at the time.Without further ado...
Courtesy of a former conspiracy theorist.
It seems appropriate to add this to the beginning of the scroll to make sure that there is at least a modicum of balance to the discussion at hand -certainly the article itself notes a lot of information on the subject and does not include after its "criticism" section a "rebuttal to criticisms." This silence appears to imply that the position of the "conspiracy theorist" critics is irrefutable which an article interested in a neutral POV should avoid the impression of giving even by implication.
I should also note in the interest of disclosure that I spent a few years in college obsessed with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, etc. I went so far as to track down a rare copy of Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope as well as Dan Smoot's work The Invisible Government (both of which were in my college library at the time incidentally enough) along with several other stock texts, had several back issues of various "conspiracy" magazines, and even was fired from a job (indirectly) over my obsession with the stuff. This is noted at the outset because I am more than familiar with the stock "arguments" propounded and the proof-texts brought forward to sustain the "theory" (so-called) and therefore will not be swayed by those who try to throw them at me as if I am unaware of them. However, if we look at some of the fundamental elements of rational thought and how they present themselves amongst those commonly taken in by these "theories", some disturbing patterns present themselves.
Why does everyone presume that all members of any organization have the exact same views and no disagreements on policy or other factors are involved in the mix? Somehow we are to believe that all who belong to CFR all have the exact same views -find for me a single organization anywhere in the world where this happens! This factor alone would account for several of the stock proof texts from old issues of Foreign Affairs or wherever where one member's opinion is thereby not transmogrified into the collective viewpoint of the whole.
Furthermore, why do all those who harp on the CFR as some "big conspiracy organization" forget to point out all the blown predictions that the "gurus" propounding these conspiracy "theories" over the decades have made? The stock response to this stuff is that the CFR and their other "affiliates" (i.e. Bilderburgers, Trilateral Commission, Royal Institute of International Affairs, or whatever) found out what they (the "prophets of world conspiracy") were onto with regards to their "master plan" and then changed their tactics to avoid "detection" or whatever. Is it possible that countless blown predictions by these sorts over the decades being swept aside and other bold predictions being made is a sign not of a "Borg-like single mentality" of the members but instead that the "conspiracy theorists" themselves are operating wholly or at least in part from a defective operative presupposition? After all, the focus is almost always on only what the "theorist" believes will sustain their interpretation with potentially controverting evidences ignored or (if they are interacted with at all) caricatured in classic "straw man" fallacy and then dismissed as "refuted" or whatever.
It appears to me that the approach taken by the "conspiracy theorists" is no different than that taken by the flat earth activists who claim to offer a "reward" for anyone who can "prove" the earth is not flat or the holocaust deniers who offer "rewards" for "proof" of the holocaust happening. In all these cases, no degree of proof can satisfy the party in question because they have prejudged the matter as one that does not admit of them possibly being wrong. This is the same mindset that blames in true xenophobic fashion all perceived "outsiders" as being the source of any and all "evils" -can anyone say Jewish blood libel trials of the Middle Ages? How about blaming everything from the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy to any calamity of the past four hundred years to the "papists" or the "Jesuits"? More could be noted but the bottom line is this: it is always easier to comfort oneself in dealing with issues that have a befuddling complexity to them by having recourse to simplistic "explanations" and then ignoring or refusing to come to grips with the problems of reason and logic (not to mention fact) that such "explanations" may have.
Now do not misunderstand me here, I am not going to claim that there are no members of CFR and other such groups past (or present) who do not have an outlook that is what would be called "globalist" in many respects. The fallacy is the claim that all members have the same views which is its own form of stereotyping. The charm of these "theories" is that they purport to give a simplistic explanation for much more complex geopolitical strata.
And for those who would complain about a lack of "balance" or whatever to the Wikipedia article itself, let us see if my comments remain in this discussion thread unedited or not. I have saved the text and I will check back periodically to see if this thread is truly one of "discussion" or if it is instead one long rant for a single viewpoint which seeks to censor or suppress the views of those who do not agree: ironically the same complaint the "conspiracy theorists" have about how they are treated! Those who would see another example of the violation of non-contradiction in such a "censoring" by world government advocates would be correct of course...time will tell if my note remains on this file in its unedited entirety or if by demonstration (read: editing or removing these comments in any respect whatsoever) my suspicions about the "ethics" of conspiracy theorist sorts as a rule will be confirmed.ShawnM (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course that is one small snippet (half of a sentence actually) taken from a twenty-two page article! Have you actually bothered to read the entire article to place that phrase in proper context? It is a near-certainty that you did not as "conspiracy theorists" by nature take these matters on faith from second and third hand (or worse) sources and do not check these matter for themselves. And as a text without context is a pre-text (for whatever interpretation you want to place upon it) you would be wise to do so along with considering what I said in the above paragraphs about one person's opinion editorial in a publication (be it Foreign Affairs or any other journal or periodical) being THE view of the CFR.ShawnM (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I originally intended to write an article on this subject saving various snippets from contributions I made to various Wikipedia articles on this subject. However, this website was suspended before I could tend to that matter. In going back to peruse the live links themselves, apparently Wikipedia at some point blocked me from contributing there until sometime in 2020. I suspect it was because of the blurbs below which were hardly helpful to propagating the conspiracy weltanschauung that was being perpetrated on the pertinent discussion threads at the time. So though some context will be lacking, I will post the blurbs here since I abhor censorship and to put out there what apparently Wikipedia conspiracy advocates who moderated such threads were too scared to let remain on said threads. So below in fire coloured font is the material published as it was originally written including any spelling or grammatical errors I made at the time.Without further ado...
Courtesy of a former conspiracy theorist.
It seems appropriate to add this to the beginning of the scroll to make sure that there is at least a modicum of balance to the discussion at hand -certainly the article itself notes a lot of information on the subject and does not include after its "criticism" section a "rebuttal to criticisms." This silence appears to imply that the position of the "conspiracy theorist" critics is irrefutable which an article interested in a neutral POV should avoid the impression of giving even by implication.
I should also note in the interest of disclosure that I spent a few years in college obsessed with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, etc. I went so far as to track down a rare copy of Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope as well as Dan Smoot's work The Invisible Government (both of which were in my college library at the time incidentally enough) along with several other stock texts, had several back issues of various "conspiracy" magazines, and even was fired from a job (indirectly) over my obsession with the stuff. This is noted at the outset because I am more than familiar with the stock "arguments" propounded and the proof-texts brought forward to sustain the "theory" (so-called) and therefore will not be swayed by those who try to throw them at me as if I am unaware of them. However, if we look at some of the fundamental elements of rational thought and how they present themselves amongst those commonly taken in by these "theories", some disturbing patterns present themselves.
Why does everyone presume that all members of any organization have the exact same views and no disagreements on policy or other factors are involved in the mix? Somehow we are to believe that all who belong to CFR all have the exact same views -find for me a single organization anywhere in the world where this happens! This factor alone would account for several of the stock proof texts from old issues of Foreign Affairs or wherever where one member's opinion is thereby not transmogrified into the collective viewpoint of the whole.
Furthermore, why do all those who harp on the CFR as some "big conspiracy organization" forget to point out all the blown predictions that the "gurus" propounding these conspiracy "theories" over the decades have made? The stock response to this stuff is that the CFR and their other "affiliates" (i.e. Bilderburgers, Trilateral Commission, Royal Institute of International Affairs, or whatever) found out what they (the "prophets of world conspiracy") were onto with regards to their "master plan" and then changed their tactics to avoid "detection" or whatever. Is it possible that countless blown predictions by these sorts over the decades being swept aside and other bold predictions being made is a sign not of a "Borg-like single mentality" of the members but instead that the "conspiracy theorists" themselves are operating wholly or at least in part from a defective operative presupposition? After all, the focus is almost always on only what the "theorist" believes will sustain their interpretation with potentially controverting evidences ignored or (if they are interacted with at all) caricatured in classic "straw man" fallacy and then dismissed as "refuted" or whatever.
It appears to me that the approach taken by the "conspiracy theorists" is no different than that taken by the flat earth activists who claim to offer a "reward" for anyone who can "prove" the earth is not flat or the holocaust deniers who offer "rewards" for "proof" of the holocaust happening. In all these cases, no degree of proof can satisfy the party in question because they have prejudged the matter as one that does not admit of them possibly being wrong. This is the same mindset that blames in true xenophobic fashion all perceived "outsiders" as being the source of any and all "evils" -can anyone say Jewish blood libel trials of the Middle Ages? How about blaming everything from the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy to any calamity of the past four hundred years to the "papists" or the "Jesuits"? More could be noted but the bottom line is this: it is always easier to comfort oneself in dealing with issues that have a befuddling complexity to them by having recourse to simplistic "explanations" and then ignoring or refusing to come to grips with the problems of reason and logic (not to mention fact) that such "explanations" may have.
Now do not misunderstand me here, I am not going to claim that there are no members of CFR and other such groups past (or present) who do not have an outlook that is what would be called "globalist" in many respects. The fallacy is the claim that all members have the same views which is its own form of stereotyping. The charm of these "theories" is that they purport to give a simplistic explanation for much more complex geopolitical strata.
And for those who would complain about a lack of "balance" or whatever to the Wikipedia article itself, let us see if my comments remain in this discussion thread unedited or not. I have saved the text and I will check back periodically to see if this thread is truly one of "discussion" or if it is instead one long rant for a single viewpoint which seeks to censor or suppress the views of those who do not agree: ironically the same complaint the "conspiracy theorists" have about how they are treated! Those who would see another example of the violation of non-contradiction in such a "censoring" by world government advocates would be correct of course...time will tell if my note remains on this file in its unedited entirety or if by demonstration (read: editing or removing these comments in any respect whatsoever) my suspicions about the "ethics" of conspiracy theorist sorts as a rule will be confirmed.ShawnM (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Put down the thesaurus and back away slowly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course that is one small snippet (half of a sentence actually) taken from a twenty-two page article! Have you actually bothered to read the entire article to place that phrase in proper context? It is a near-certainty that you did not as "conspiracy theorists" by nature take these matters on faith from second and third hand (or worse) sources and do not check these matter for themselves. And as a text without context is a pre-text (for whatever interpretation you want to place upon it) you would be wise to do so along with considering what I said in the above paragraphs about one person's opinion editorial in a publication (be it Foreign Affairs or any other journal or periodical) being THE view of the CFR.ShawnM (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Monday, November 19, 2018
Points to Ponder:
Words can not describe the sad impressions that have been made on me by the agitation continually growing among Catholics, by these intolerable polemics, by this confusion of ideas, and above all by this lack of respect and of obedience to the Holy Father. I regard this as the worst of all the damage, and I offer most earnest prayers for this to come to an end. For us Catholics the name of the Pope is sacred and untouchable. The confusion which dominates minds, the doubts which arise from it, the judgment of the press, sometimes so unjust, and finally, the outbursts of emotions constitute a state of affairs which is deplorable. It behooves all of us to pray to God that some remedy be found. [Cardinal Rampolla: As quoted in The Life of Benedict XV written by Rev. Walter H. Peters. (c. 1959)]
Words can not describe the sad impressions that have been made on me by the agitation continually growing among Catholics, by these intolerable polemics, by this confusion of ideas, and above all by this lack of respect and of obedience to the Holy Father. I regard this as the worst of all the damage, and I offer most earnest prayers for this to come to an end. For us Catholics the name of the Pope is sacred and untouchable. The confusion which dominates minds, the doubts which arise from it, the judgment of the press, sometimes so unjust, and finally, the outbursts of emotions constitute a state of affairs which is deplorable. It behooves all of us to pray to God that some remedy be found. [Cardinal Rampolla: As quoted in The Life of Benedict XV written by Rev. Walter H. Peters. (c. 1959)]
Briefly...
I wonder if anyone from #NeverTrump will be buying any of the #Avenatti2020 campaign swag, particularly the special Avenatti2020 wifebeaters.
I wonder if anyone from #NeverTrump will be buying any of the #Avenatti2020 campaign swag, particularly the special Avenatti2020 wifebeaters.
On the Scandals in the Church and How to Respond To Them:
I was about to post a shorter response that I realized would lack context if I did not include the back story to it. So I will do so at this time putting in blockquote the original source. My interlocuter's words will be in orange font with my original response to them in purple. Without further ado...
We should be asking ourselves similar questions when posting about problems in the world in general. It certainly doesn’t give glory to God passing over in silence the malfeasance of the Church hierarchy. If we are not willing to hold the leadership of the Church to basic moral standards we have right to,be taken seriously by the world at large.
I am unaware that there is anything in that post that says one must "pass over in silence" anything. Calling for being measured and balanced (spiritually and otherwise) in how one responds to issues/problems is the hallmark of traditional Catholic spirituality. And its never more worth pondering than when doing so means someone has to check their own inclinations on these matters.
the post casts aspersions on the motives of those who criticize the Church hierarchy.
Not really. It only applies to those who do such things in ways alien to how someone with a proper and authentic spiritual disposition would go about these matters.
I get the “sense” that this is a veiled way of telling people they should shut up about what’s going on.
See my previous comments.
What we should be “thinking” about here is the veracity of the claims made, such as those being made by Archbishop Vigano.
Here we go...
Even Cardinal Ouellette concedes Viganò’s claims while claiming the Archbishop said things he didn’t say.
Actually, this is not true. Archbishop Vigano has spun like a top on his fundamental claim and his ardent disciples are not being honest about this.{1} Furthermore, Vigano revealed in his third "testimony" what his real motivations were for "speaking out" and they were not what the lions share of those who are lauding his supposed "brave stance" are claiming. In Vigano's own words:
I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.
Therefore I spoke.
In other words, he did not speak up because of the sex abuse of the clergy or to give voice to the victims of it. His reason for speaking up was for another reason; namely, he did not like the pope's approach to theology, most notably moral theology. In other words, his testimonies were precisely what Cardinal Ouellet said they were: political frame jobs.
More could be noted but again, what is the point since Vigano is being treated by his most ardent advocates no differently than the way conspiracy theorists do when you address the substance of their complaints and point out how they do not square with what they claim?{2} Besides, Vigano is in reality nothing more than an avatar for those who despise the pope and/or otherwise wish to find ways to undermine him. This is becoming more evident over time and since he is not completely wet in his accusations{3}, it makes it easier for those for whom he is said avatar to be strident at times in their defenses of him.
Well, people aren’t going to shut up about this, not should they.
See my initial comments about authentic spiritual dispositions{4} above.
Measured? In proportion to the corruption we are seeing in the episcopate and even the pope himself, calling this cancer the cancer it is is pretty damned measured if you ask me.
See my previous comments.
Notes:
{1} I thought about writing on this point in detail a while back but after the draft was finished, I decided after pondering the matter overnight to leave it in draft form. Why? Because I am not so sure I want to go into another round of addressing those who engage in "the circle is really a square" type arguments. It is sorta like discussing the atomic issue insofar as those with their minds stubbornly made up are not going to be open to reassessing their operative presuppositions so one has to ask themselves of what real value can such things ordinarily have.
{2} I have written a lot on the mentality behind conspiracy theories in recent years but most of it was in the form of Facebook notes back when this site was suspended. (Though there were a few examples that come to mind from the pre-suspension days including this one and this one.) One such example recently re-formatted and reposted to this website can be viewed here.
{3} There are some claims Vigano has made that appear to be accurate -most notably what he said about Weurl and Sodano. However, as I have never liked Sodano, its possible that personal biases are colouring my view of Vigano's claims where he is concerned.
{4} To note one such example of many that come to mind, that of St. Catherine of Siena often cited out of context by those who fancy themselves followers of her:
"He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don't pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don't trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." [Letter to Barnabas, the Viscount Lord of Milan on the Pope and Obedience to Him (circa ante 1380)]
I was about to post a shorter response that I realized would lack context if I did not include the back story to it. So I will do so at this time putting in blockquote the original source. My interlocuter's words will be in orange font with my original response to them in purple. Without further ado...
I once again want to appeal to those who post about the Church's problems, to ask themselves, "What effect will my post have on others, as far as their ability to live faith, hope, and charity, and what effect will my post, my thinking, and my message have, on myself."
At ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood, we seminarians were asked to swear oaths in writing, that what we undertook in ministry, we did so, with "no other purpose than the glory of Almighty God, the good of the Church/exaltation of the Faith, and the salvation of my own soul."
We had to write this out, in hand, in various copies, when we petitioned for Holy Orders.
That is, or should be the priority, when it comes to writing about the Pope, or the bishops, or my personal bishop, or my pastor, or the clergy in general. First, is what I post, especially on a social network, giving glory to God? I don't mean is it giving glory to God in a subtle or roundabout way. Is it glorifying God in a sense, obvious to the average reader?
Second, is what I write about all the workings of the Church, and post, on Facebook, building up the Church and showcasing the beauty of Catholic Faith? What do the non-Catholics and unbelievers walk away with, when they see my posts on a papal document, a synod, or a meeting of the bishops? Are they now tempted to join RCIA? Do my Catholic brethren read my posts about the Church and experience an increase in the theological virtue of hope? Or of charity?
And third, what about the salvation of my own soul. People who repeat, often, the quote about the "auto-demolition of the Church" must understand, that the auto-demolition of the Church begins with the auto-demolition of my own soul, by failing to seek holiness and the peace of Christ.
I have heard it all from people who get irritated with these questions: "Excuse me, but I have a right to be angry! Don't you know that it's my right to express my opinions and anger to the pastors of the Church? I have a crusade for justice, and like Catherine of Siena I will not be silent! It is excessive papalotry and thinking the hierarchy is impeccable that got us into this mess!"
However, read the writings of the saints, when they are angry or enraged. I don't mean those pithy quotes that fit in a meme, or that are cut and pasted from their context. Read an entire chapter or passage of an angry statement from a saint. What is the difference between what the saints write, and what we post?
The difference is that the saints and holy people who are not yet canonized leave us with a sense of trust in God. They leave us with the sense that the Faith is beautiful and strong, even when its leaders fail and are weak.
The difference is that holy people will always leave us with a sense that we must reach out to, and try to save, even the adversaries within the Church that we hate or dislike. I am not alone when I say that the comments made about Pope Francis, or a failed bishop in the Church, or a priest who is lost, are often without any evidence of this desire that they be saved.
My sense is that the exclamation, "He needs prayers!" or "God help him" are more of a desire for God's wrath and vengeance upon the pope or the clergy, and less a desire that they see the light and be saved by God. And those are exclamations from people who are nice. Most comments run along the line of how stupid, insane, evil, lying, sneaky, pernicious, treacherous, laughable, and disgusting these people in the Church are.
Just some things to think about.
We should be asking ourselves similar questions when posting about problems in the world in general. It certainly doesn’t give glory to God passing over in silence the malfeasance of the Church hierarchy. If we are not willing to hold the leadership of the Church to basic moral standards we have right to,be taken seriously by the world at large.
I am unaware that there is anything in that post that says one must "pass over in silence" anything. Calling for being measured and balanced (spiritually and otherwise) in how one responds to issues/problems is the hallmark of traditional Catholic spirituality. And its never more worth pondering than when doing so means someone has to check their own inclinations on these matters.
the post casts aspersions on the motives of those who criticize the Church hierarchy.
Not really. It only applies to those who do such things in ways alien to how someone with a proper and authentic spiritual disposition would go about these matters.
I get the “sense” that this is a veiled way of telling people they should shut up about what’s going on.
See my previous comments.
What we should be “thinking” about here is the veracity of the claims made, such as those being made by Archbishop Vigano.
Here we go...
Even Cardinal Ouellette concedes Viganò’s claims while claiming the Archbishop said things he didn’t say.
Actually, this is not true. Archbishop Vigano has spun like a top on his fundamental claim and his ardent disciples are not being honest about this.{1} Furthermore, Vigano revealed in his third "testimony" what his real motivations were for "speaking out" and they were not what the lions share of those who are lauding his supposed "brave stance" are claiming. In Vigano's own words:
I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.
Therefore I spoke.
In other words, he did not speak up because of the sex abuse of the clergy or to give voice to the victims of it. His reason for speaking up was for another reason; namely, he did not like the pope's approach to theology, most notably moral theology. In other words, his testimonies were precisely what Cardinal Ouellet said they were: political frame jobs.
More could be noted but again, what is the point since Vigano is being treated by his most ardent advocates no differently than the way conspiracy theorists do when you address the substance of their complaints and point out how they do not square with what they claim?{2} Besides, Vigano is in reality nothing more than an avatar for those who despise the pope and/or otherwise wish to find ways to undermine him. This is becoming more evident over time and since he is not completely wet in his accusations{3}, it makes it easier for those for whom he is said avatar to be strident at times in their defenses of him.
Well, people aren’t going to shut up about this, not should they.
See my initial comments about authentic spiritual dispositions{4} above.
Measured? In proportion to the corruption we are seeing in the episcopate and even the pope himself, calling this cancer the cancer it is is pretty damned measured if you ask me.
See my previous comments.
Notes:
{1} I thought about writing on this point in detail a while back but after the draft was finished, I decided after pondering the matter overnight to leave it in draft form. Why? Because I am not so sure I want to go into another round of addressing those who engage in "the circle is really a square" type arguments. It is sorta like discussing the atomic issue insofar as those with their minds stubbornly made up are not going to be open to reassessing their operative presuppositions so one has to ask themselves of what real value can such things ordinarily have.
{2} I have written a lot on the mentality behind conspiracy theories in recent years but most of it was in the form of Facebook notes back when this site was suspended. (Though there were a few examples that come to mind from the pre-suspension days including this one and this one.) One such example recently re-formatted and reposted to this website can be viewed here.
{3} There are some claims Vigano has made that appear to be accurate -most notably what he said about Weurl and Sodano. However, as I have never liked Sodano, its possible that personal biases are colouring my view of Vigano's claims where he is concerned.
{4} To note one such example of many that come to mind, that of St. Catherine of Siena often cited out of context by those who fancy themselves followers of her:
"He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don't pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don't trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." [Letter to Barnabas, the Viscount Lord of Milan on the Pope and Obedience to Him (circa ante 1380)]